Case Reference: GC–FIR–004
Designation: Multi-Year Missing Persons Investigation
Primary Incident: Disappearance of a Minor
Report Compiled by: Inspector Tomas Reed
Rank: City Watch, Gearcross Detail
Assigned Under: Senior Investigator (Protagonist)
Initial Date of Incident: 11th Day of Emberwane, Year –8
Final Compilation Date: Present Day
Primary Area of Concern: White Row Apartments – Community Park
Incident Classification: Child Abduction / Serial Disappearance (Closed Pending Location)
At approximately 17:40 hours on the 11th Day of Emberwane, eight years prior to this report, a six-year-old child—Oren Halwick—was reported missing from the White Row Apartments Community Park. The park is a controlled civic leisure space bordered by residential blocks housing railway workers, clerks, and lower-tier government employees.
The child was last seen near the central fountain. No alarm was raised at the time of disappearance. No witnesses reported suspicious behavior. No struggle was observed. The child simply did not return home.
Initial response classified the incident as a likely wandering or custodial misunderstanding. A routine sweep yielded no result.
The case would not remain isolated.
Over the following eight years, four additional missing children were identified through delayed reporting, retrospective audit, and parental petitions. All five cases share consistent features in timing, location, and victim profile.
Oren Halwick – Age 6 – White Row Community Park (Year –8)
Lysa Fenner – Age 7 – White Row Community Park (Year –6)
Bran Coel – Age 6 – Community Park perimeter bench (Year –4)
Irin Moss – Age 8 – Adjacent pedestrian crossing (Year –2)
Tess Marrin – Age 6 – Community Park, eastern lawn (Year –1)
None of these cases initially triggered escalation. Each was processed as an independent incident. It was only after the fifth disappearance that a pattern could no longer be procedurally ignored.
All five victims conform to a highly specific demographic and situational profile:
Ages between 6 and 8
Children of time-dependent workers (railway staff, clerks, shift labor)
Guardians routinely absent during bell-aligned work hours
Victims were not enrolled in elite schooling or Crown-sponsored programs
Families lacked political leverage or financial resources
Psychological and social review indicates no history of neglect, abuse, or incentive for voluntary disappearance.
These children were not selected at random.
They were available.
Four of the five disappearances occurred within the boundaries of White Row Community Park. The fifth occurred less than twenty meters outside the park during a period of bell transition.
The park itself is a designed civic space, featuring:
Controlled ingress and egress points
Limited sightline obstructions
Predictable foot traffic
Proximity to residential blocks and administrative housing
It is actively maintained and lightly surveilled, but not patrolled.
Importantly:
The park exists in a temporal buffer zone—a space where people wait between schedules.
Across all incidents, witness statements are consistent in their vagueness:
“They were there a moment ago.”
“I looked away to check the time.”
“The bell rang.”
“I assumed they went home.”
No witness reports seeing the children leave.
No witness reports seeing anyone take them.
Community response followed a predictable arc:
Initial concern
Procedural reassurance
Quiet acceptance
Over time, parents altered routines. Children were kept indoors. The park emptied gradually.
No official closure was announced.
The space simply lost its users.
All five disappearances occurred during bell transition windows—periods where:
Work shifts end or begin
Guardians are either arriving late or leaving early
Attention is divided between movement and timekeeping
No disappearances occurred outside these windows.
No disappearances occurred during unscheduled hours.
The children vanished when the city was changing states.
Through archival review, informal interviews, and cross-case synthesis, this investigator has reconstructed a consistent movement pattern:
Child present in park
Bell transition begins
Guardian attention diverted
Child moves—or is moved—toward park perimeter
No confirmed sightings thereafter
There is no evidence of force.
There is no evidence of panic.
The disappearance appears cooperative or neutral in its execution.
The following possibilities were investigated and dismissed:
Runaways: No evidence of preparation, survival capability, or later sightings
Organized trafficking: No financial trail, no recovery, no resale pattern
Familial abduction: No custody disputes, no flight indicators
Accidental death: No remains recovered, no environmental hazards sufficient
The consistency of victim age, timing, and location excludes coincidence.
Based on behavioral and logistical analysis, the abductor (or abductors) demonstrates:
Familiarity with bell schedules
Familiarity with community trust structures
Ability to move unnoticed during routine disruption
Access to a temporary concealment location
The children are not taken far.
They are taken out of sight.
The White Row Community Park functions as the collection point, not the destination.
Repeated inspections of surrounding buildings, sewer access, service corridors, and transport nodes reveal no permanent holding site.
This investigator concludes that the final hideout is:
Temporary
Mobile or repurposed
Accessible only during specific timing windows
No longer in use
The trail ends not because it is incomplete—but because the structure that enabled it no longer exists.
Based on accumulated evidence, this investigator assesses the case as 99% resolved in terms of:
Victim selection criteria
Timing methodology
Behavioral pattern
Community exploitation
The only unresolved element is the final location used to remove the children from public space.
Without that location, no charges can be filed.
Without charges, the case remains open.
These children were not hunted.
They were collected.
They were taken from a place designed to hold them briefly, during a moment designed to distract adults. Whoever did this did not fight the city.
They used it.
The park remains.
The bells still ring.
The children do not return.
I have been advised that the case meets the criteria for administrative closure due to lack of actionable endpoints.
I disagree.
The absence of the hideout is not a failure of investigation.
It is evidence that the city is capable of erasing spaces, not just people.
This investigator recommends:
Continued monitoring of bell-transition civic spaces
Retrospective audit of temporary structures removed over the last decade
Permanent documentation of this pattern within Gearcross records
Even if the perpetrator is never identified, the method must be remembered.
Because it worked.
Five children disappeared over eight years.
No alarms were triggered.
No systems failed.
No schedules were broken.
The city did not notice because it was not meant to.
I submit this report knowing it will likely be archived rather than acted upon.
That does not make it untrue.
Case Status: Open (Practically Closed)
Investigator Confidence: High
Remaining Unknown: Final hideout location
Respectfully submitted,
Inspector Tomas Reed
City Watch, Gearcross